AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 2053/11, which is an application for condonation of delay in preferring Cr.A. No. 2539/10. As per Office note, the appeal is barred by 27 days.
Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A. is allowed and the delay preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
Heard on admission.
Judgment, under challenge, being the same, this common order shall govern the disposal of aforementioned appeal and application for leave to appeal.
Cr.A. No. 2539/10 has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), whereas M.Cr.C. No. 12770/10 is an application, u/s 378(3) of the Code, against the judgment dated 9/9/10 passed by Special Judge (under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act")), Chhindwara, in Special Case No. 114/09, whereby accused Durgesh, Narendra, Lekhram, Golu and Dwarka have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 in alternative 302 /149, 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), whereas Lekhram, Golu and Dwarka have also been acquitted of the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of the Act.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6/8/09, Ajay alias Chhotu Soni lodged a report at Kotwali Chhindwara to the effect that Santosh (since deceased) had informed him that two days back, he had a quarrel with Chhotu alias Kantar. On 5/8/09 at about 8.30 p.m., when complainant was standing with Santosh at a Pan Shop, Santosh told him that Chhotu alias Kantar was planning to kill him. At that juncture, Chhotu alias Kantar, Golu, Vivek Yadav and Chhotu belonging to Sukuludhana came there and took Santosh with them to Fwara Chowk for consuming liquor, where Bablu and Durgesh also came. They all went to the Stadium for having liquor. On the roof of stadium, while taking liquor, Chhotu entered into an altercation with Santosh, in pursuance of which, Dwarka assaulted Santosh with a Bottle, while Chhotu and Golu beat him with kicks and fists. Sustaining injuries, Santosh died. On the aforesaid report, morgue was registered and offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 /149, 201 of the IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Act were registered against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the victim, who is mother of the deceased, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with.
Learned Government Advocate in support of arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant also submitted that without proper appreciation of evidence, the impugned judgment was passed which deserves to be interfered with and prayed for grant leave to file appeal.
In response, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the judgment of acquittal, being passed after proper appreciation of evidence on record, was well merited.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.
Eye witness Ashish Soni (PW1) has testified in his evidence that he did not see any quarrel of deceased Santosh with anyone. Similarly, other material witnesses Manish Yadav (PW2), Sonu Soni (PW3) and Santosh Malviya (PW7) have not supported the case of prosecution. Forensic Science Lab Report (Ex. P/20) also did not support the case of prosecution.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question.
The appeal, as well as the leave application, being devoid of any merit and substance, stand dismissed. Copy of the order be retained in the connected M.Cr.C.